Slashdot Mirror


Genetic Modification Produces Mighty Mouse

Identity Missing writes "An Ohio laboratory has produced genetically modified mice which 'can run five to six kilometres at a speed of 20 meters per minute on a treadmill, for up to six hours before stopping,' as well as a number of other remarkable feats. An enzyme called phosphoenolypyruvate carboxykinases (PEPCK-C) is apparently responsible, and we should hope that the scientists are correct in saying that athletes won't be modifying their genes any time soon to get it, because it apparently makes the mice more aggressive. If anyone feels a super villain coming on, at least we can rely on these Mighty Mice. A video demonstrates just how much these little guys beat the competition."

320 comments

  1. What Are We Doing Tonight Brain? by AmIAnAi · · Score: 4, Funny

    The Same thing we do every night Pinky. Try to take over the world.

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced bug is indistinguishable from a feature.
    1. Re:What Are We Doing Tonight Brain? by ZeroExistenZ · · Score: 4, Funny

      But Brain, why the toga? No one's worn those in years. Except for that one really strange man in Lancaster-Shire.

      --
      I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
    2. Re:What Are We Doing Tonight Brain? by Mursk · · Score: 1
      Right. What makes us sure these uber-mice won't be the super villains?

      Quis custodiet the mighty mice?

      --
      "This thing does science so hard, you say, 'I've never seen that much science.'" -Sam
    3. Re:What Are We Doing Tonight Brain? by somersault · · Score: 1

      Well, just in case the mice go off the deep end, we're developing mighty cats. And in the event that they get out of cotrol we have the mighty dogs. And we have gigantic stuffed dolls and sticks to distract the dogs long enough to get the whaling harpoons trained on them.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    4. Re:What Are We Doing Tonight Brain? by Bozdune · · Score: 1

      "Ben?"

    5. Re:What Are We Doing Tonight Brain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      "Are you pondering what I'm pondering?"

      "I think so Brain, but I don't think David Hasselhoff makes house calls"

    6. Re:What Are We Doing Tonight Brain? by Belacgod · · Score: 1

      Wondermark is already on it.

    7. Re:What Are We Doing Tonight Brain? by pragma_x · · Score: 1

      Lisa: But aren't the dogs even worse?
      Skinner: We've lined up a fabulous type of gorilla that thrives on dog meat
      Lisa: But then we're stuck with gorillas!
      Skinner: When wintertime rolls around, the gorillas simply freeze to death

    8. Re:What Are We Doing Tonight Brain? by duggi · · Score: 1

      I just want some sharks with lasers on their head.

      --
      http://monkeynesianeconomics.blogspot.com/
    9. Re:What Are We Doing Tonight Brain? by somersault · · Score: 1

      More like "that's the beauty of it... when wintertime rolls around, the gorrillas simply freeze to death" ;) Tried to inject new parts rather than simply quote though >_> Ahem.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    10. Re:What Are We Doing Tonight Brain? by luder · · Score: 1

      And we have gigantic stuffed dolls and sticks to distract the dogs long enough to get the whaling harpoons trained on them.

      And if that fails, we now can have true Duracell rabbits! You know they're all into the 'make love not war' thing, right? By the end of the day, when they're finished, you would have the whole crowd of genetic modified mice, cats and dogs laying on the grass, smoking a joint and singing Beattles' song "All You Need Is Love".

      Of course, on the next day the rabbits might come after us...

    11. Re:What Are We Doing Tonight Brain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I for one welcome our muscle bound mice overlords.

    12. Re:What Are We Doing Tonight Brain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a couple novels by Larry Niven, Jerry Pournelle and Steve Barnes, in which colonists of a new planet find that there is a kind of "speed" compound in parts of the biosphere. Not a built-in genetic thing, but close enough. See "The Legacy of Heorot" and "Beowulf's Children" for some very speedy dangerous animals.

    13. Re:What Are We Doing Tonight Brain? by LanMan04 · · Score: 1

      But Brain, if they called them "Sad Meals" no one would buy them!

      --
      With the first link, the chain is forged.
    14. Re:What Are We Doing Tonight Brain? by Philosinfinity · · Score: 1

      I think so Brain, but me and Pipi Longstocking, I mean, what would the children look like?

    15. Re:What Are We Doing Tonight Brain? by smilindog2000 · · Score: 1

      These super-mice articles are funny, but they keep getting slightly more scary each time. So, now we know how to make tireless regenerating fearless super-long-lived mice... good thing were only playing with mice :-)

      --
      Beer is proof that God loves us, and wants us to be happy.
    16. Re:What Are We Doing Tonight Brain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you. I never would have understood the post above without you quoting that for us for the millionth time. Your humor skills are without compare.

    17. Re:What Are We Doing Tonight Brain? by 3seas · · Score: 1

      First they ignore you
      then they laugh at you.....
      then they slander you
      then you win...

      Ready for super mouse domination?

    18. Re:What Are We Doing Tonight Brain? by somersault · · Score: 1

      Damnit, why did we use Duracell!! Those things just keep going and going and..

      --
      which is totally what she said
  2. Let me be the first to say... by ZonkerWilliam · · Score: 0

    Welcome to our Mighty mouse overlords!

    1. Re:Let me be the first to say... by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 2, Funny

      Here I come to save the day!

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    2. Re:Let me be the first to say... by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 1

      *Nervous fidgeting*

    3. Re:Let me be the first to say... by ThirdPrize · · Score: 1

      Never has this been more apt.

      --
      I have excellent Karma and I am not afraid to Troll it.
    4. Re:Let me be the first to say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't want to rule us, they just need to know the question. They'll be happy with "How many roads must a man walk down."

    5. Re:Let me be the first to say... by BlackSnake112 · · Score: 1

      I saw the headline and was actually looking for the the mouse in the yellow suit with the red cape.

    6. Re:Let me be the first to say... by Cragen · · Score: 1
      Yellow? Really? I am not sure I ever knew that. All we ever had, seriously, was b&w until around 1972. Sadly, we still watched 3 or 4 hrs. of tv every day. Great training for software devs. (Say, that explains a lot!) Sad that the story was posted for over an hour before a "Mighty Mouse" (from the old tv cartoons) reference was made.

      I didn't knew, until I read the article below, that there was a later version by Ralph Bakshi, of "Fritz the Cat" and Wizards (!) fame. Now to see if I can find that on DVD somewhere.

      Mighty Mouse History link " In the late '80s, Ralph Bakshi, a former Terrytoons director who had gone on to produce such well-received animated features as Fritz the Cat and Wizards, came out with yet another Saturday morning Mighty Mouse show. This one fleshed out his personality, gave him a secret identity and a supporting cast, and let imagination and good writing compensate for low TV budgets. It was this series that was adapted into the most recent Marvel Comics version. "

    7. Re:Let me be the first to say... by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 1

      Sad that the story was posted for over an hour before a "Mighty Mouse" (from the old tv cartoons) reference was made.
      The story was posted at 10:15. My post was at 10:21. First thing I thought of when I saw it.
      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
  3. Well, you know the next step... by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 5, Funny

    Someone will just have to build a better mousetrap!

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    1. Re:Well, you know the next step... by salec · · Score: 5, Funny

      Or GM the cats same way, too!

    2. Re:Well, you know the next step... by c_sd_m · · Score: 2, Funny
      Depends on the side effects and permanence of the enhancement.

      P.S. please if you get a chanse put some flowrs on Algernon's grave in the bak yard.

    3. Re:Well, you know the next step... by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

      And then they'd come up with another genetic hack to the mice.

      They end up playing a cat-and-mouse game! :)

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    4. Re:Well, you know the next step... by Carthag · · Score: 3, Funny

      Tex Avery already explored the possibilites of the ever escalating war of ever-growing mice & cats, cf. King-Size Canary (1947). It doesn't bode well for us if we go down that line.

    5. Re:Well, you know the next step... by MindKata · · Score: 1

      From the article "These animals are rather aggressive, we've noticed."

      So if we have to GM our cats, I want some as well, so I can fight off the cat and mouse!

      --
      There are 10 kinds of people in the world... those who understand binary and those who don't.
    6. Re:Well, you know the next step... by mikael · · Score: 1
      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    7. Re:Well, you know the next step... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You realize this is all heading towards an epic, city-destroying battle between GM cats and GM mice. God have mercy on our dirty little hearts.

    8. Re:Well, you know the next step... by Belacgod · · Score: 4, Funny
      They'll be taken out by the Toyota cats and mice.

      Damn Japanese imports.

    9. Re:Well, you know the next step... by MindKata · · Score: 1

      "epic, city-destroying battle between GM cats and GM mice"

      and it'll happen fast. Imagine how much stamina these creatures are going to have when breeding! ... within a year, we would be up to our eyeballs in the an endless thunder of them fighting and shaging ... well we would be, but for all life on earth will be nothing but cats and mice eating everything in their path.

      --
      There are 10 kinds of people in the world... those who understand binary and those who don't.
    10. Re:Well, you know the next step... by newgalactic · · Score: 1

      A genetically modified hyper-intelligent cat is about the most frightening thing I've thought of in a while. Unencumbered by morals, pity, or regret. It'd be like Aliens, but cute and cuddly and no acid for blood.

    11. Re:Well, you know the next step... by __aaleib9616 · · Score: 1

      This story and your sig go entirely too well together.

    12. Re:Well, you know the next step... by edittard · · Score: 1

      Make them twice the size of humans too and you've got Larry Niven's Kzin.

      --
      At the bottom of the /. main page it says 'Yesterday's News'. Well they got that right.
    13. Re:Well, you know the next step... by Walt+Dismal · · Score: 1
      We need bionic exterminators like the $6,000,000 Exterminator.

      We can rebuild him. Better, faster, stronger, and with bionic cheese. Much like the TV show, which defined the meaning of megacheesy.

    14. Re:Well, you know the next step... by newgalactic · · Score: 1

      No, no, their small size is their strength. They'll take us unsuspecting. I'd be none the wiser, with kitty sitting on my lap purring. None the wiser that kitty has blown out my oven's pilot light, turned off my water bed, switched my prescription medicine,... We trust them because we think they love us and pose no threat, when all the while they're obsessed with MURDER. ...we'd mobilize the National Guard in a second if Giant super-intelligent cats appeared on the scene. Good book reference though, I might have to pick it up.

    15. Re:Well, you know the next step... by m2pc · · Score: 1

      They're called "Mice Rockets"...

    16. Re:Well, you know the next step... by MadUndergrad · · Score: 1

      No, that's the beauty of it! The cats will all starve come winter.

    17. Re:Well, you know the next step... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Moderators - this is good stuff (tm)

  4. 20 meters to minute? Awesome! by Laebshade · · Score: 1

    That's a mind-boggling 0.745645431 mph!

  5. I for one by WormholeFiend · · Score: 5, Interesting

    hope that these rodents don't escape the lab.

    Ordinary mice are hard enough to control as pests...

    1. Re:I for one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Scientist are not stupid. They already got that covered with Monsanto's "terminator gene".

    2. Re:I for one by welcher · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It seems unlikely that this would actually confer a selective advantage on the mouse - being able to run like crazy but need almost twice as much food doesnt sound like a good strategy to me.

    3. Re:I for one by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      My suspicion is that they wouldn't do well in the wild. Aggression and strength in the natural world have to be balanced with food requirements, which is basically why not every living thing is super-strong, super-fast, and super-tough. Dire wolves are gone for a reason ... These mice "eat twice as much and weigh half as much," which sounds great to people living in the modern industrialized world, but is a pretty serious liability for a wild animal.

      Also, they may be amazingly tough for mice, but you know, they're still mice. No matter how big and strong they may be, there are still plenty of critters bigger and stronger than they. If their aggression translates into a lack of caution around predators, then they'd essentially be nothing but a nice lean snack for health-conscious cats. ;)

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    4. Re:I for one by eastlight_jim · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A mouse like this will face a penalty for its increased speed. For a start, they will require more food (a scarce enough resource for any wild mouse) and since PEPCK is involved in gluconeogenesis (the manufacture of glucose from precursors such as protein and lipids) they will likely have a harder time laying down the fat needed to survuive the colder months.

      Also, since these are albino mice they will likely face increased threat from predation (like most other albino animals) and thus face a significant selective pressure against them.

      Hopefully the scientists won't let them escape but if they do, natural selection should lead to them being removed from the gene pool quite quickly.

    5. Re:I for one by kurzweilfreak · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm sure they remembered to build in a Lysine Contingency. It's SOP in these cases, ya know...

      --

      kurzweil_freak

      5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student

      Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.

    6. Re:I for one by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

      Let's see how well they stand up to a New York City Subway Mouse!

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    7. Re:I for one by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      Ah, but if they did manage to mate, would we see some of these new genes survive?

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    8. Re:I for one by eastlight_jim · · Score: 1

      I've not read up on the specific genetics involved here but theoretically, yes. These would be subject to the same selective pressures though.

      If you end up with a half and half mouse then it will face half the selective pressure against it. Either way, it will be removed from the gene pool. By selective pressure and killing of the mutant mice or by dilution to the point of irrelevance amongst the whole mouse population.

    9. Re:I for one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They would have trouble in the wild, true, but I would think in human environments with plenty of garbage they might do quite well.

    10. Re:I for one by Krishnoid · · Score: 1

      suspect they'll head over to the rodents at NIMH, start pushing past them in the mazes, call them names, and give them wedgies.

    11. Re:I for one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the other hand, you should google for "grasshopper mouse". These mice regularly hunt scorpions, tarantulas, centipedes (even snakes and other mice). Sometimes they hunt in packs. They also have a tendency to howl at the moon.

      Mice can be fearsome beasties :)

  6. So by hcdejong · · Score: 4, Funny

    Acme Labs is at it again?

    1. Re:So by nogginthenog · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sound smore like the Rats of NIMH

  7. Testosterone? by CarpetShark · · Score: 1, Insightful

    More aggressive? Sounds like what this actually does is produce testosterone or something equivalent, not better muscles/hearts directly.

    1. Re:Testosterone? by ByOhTek · · Score: 1

      The production of testosterone wouldn't surprise me given the results. However, given the complex and interconnected nature of many biological pathways, it likely creates a lot more than just testosterone.

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    2. Re:Testosterone? by provigilman · · Score: 1

      Even if it is just testosterone, the point is that it's a permanent genetic modification leading to this effect, rather than a temporary injection.

      --
      "Life's short and hard, like a body building elf." -- The Bloodhound Gang
    3. Re:Testosterone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, how long before they wear out, in the same manner that humans with larger bodies still maintain the same heart size and expire more quickly...

    4. Re:Testosterone? by ByOhTek · · Score: 1

      I never said that wasn't the case, nor said that "not just testosterone" was a mitigating factor to that case. Nor did the individual I responded to argue otherwise. Given that they are genetic modifications, I would expect the whole "permanent" thing would be fairly obvious, and go without saying.

      Well, unless someone finds a gene therapy method of reversing the process.

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    5. Re:Testosterone? by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

      Yes, but that amount of testosterone would be BAD. Anyway, someone else has pointed out that it's to do with mitochondria, so I guess it's not important :)

    6. Re:Testosterone? by ByOhTek · · Score: 1

      Mitochondria explains the energy use. It doesn't explain the agressiveness. I wouldn't be surprised if testosterone were a side effect.

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
  8. Whatever you do... by lonesome_coder · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...don't make them angry. You wouldn't like them when they are angry...

    --
    If you'd just do what we tell you and quit yer gripin' everything would be chocolate sprinkles and rainbows! -AC
  9. Re:20 meters to minute? Awesome! by JK_the_Slacker · · Score: 0

    That's only 2/100 of a mile per hour faster than the average Slashdotter!

    --
    I'm waiting for a "-1 somepeoplejustshouldn'tgetmodprivileges" meta-moderation.
  10. obligatory response by ByOhTek · · Score: 5, Funny

    In Soviet Russia, meme botches you!

    --
    Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    1. Re:obligatory response by 100_Monkeys_Typing · · Score: 1

      I, for one, want to welcome our new alien Mouse overlords.

  11. I for one ... by hcpxvi · · Score: 1

    ... welcome our small squeaking high-powered overlords.

    (It had to be done)

    1. Re:I for one ... by hcpxvi · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      What! I got a F1r5t P05t and I forgot to say F1r5t P05t. Darn!

    2. Re:I for one ... by hcpxvi · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Oh no, I didn't. More darn. New technology baffles pissed old hack[er] again.

  12. Cool. by Stanistani · · Score: 5, Funny

    Overclocked mice! Do they have an overheat problem?

    1. Re:Cool. by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      UniSol Mice?

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    2. Re:Cool. by Surt · · Score: 1

      Yes, if you watch to the very end of the video, the little super mouse just spontaneously combusts. It was pretty sad really, I bet the researchers felt pretty bad about that.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    3. Re:Cool. by p0tat03 · · Score: 1

      I know you're trying to be funny, but they probably would. Running a mile a minute for hours on end burns a lot of energy, and releases a LOT of heat. It's imaginable that these mice may be fast enough that overheating becomes an issue!

  13. PEBCAK? by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 4, Funny

    Problem Exists Between Chair and Keyboard? I had no idea it could be applied for this purpose!

  14. I have a mighty mouse.... by NPN_Transistor · · Score: 5, Funny

    I have a mighty mouse, yet it can't "run five to six kilometres at a speed of 20 meters per minute on a treadmill", feel aggression, or do "a number of other remarkable feats". All it does is sit in my hand and make clicking noises when I try to pet it. It runs a lot longer than "six hours", but it doesn't seem to do anything else. It doesn't seem to have any eyes or a tail either. I think it might be defective... maybe I should return it to Apple.

    1. Re:I have a mighty mouse.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a mighty mouse, yet it can't "run five to six kilometres at a speed of 20 meters per minute on a treadmill", feel aggression, or do "a number of other remarkable feats". All it does is sit in my hand and make clicking noises when I try to pet it. It runs a lot longer than "six hours", but it doesn't seem to do anything else. It doesn't seem to have any eyes or a tail either. I think it might be defective... maybe I should return it to Apple.
      No eyes and no tail would accurately describe a non-optical wireless mouse.
      And it hasn't felt aggression? I don't believe you.
  15. PEPCK Apoplecticism by digitaldc · · Score: 1

    athletes won't be modifying their genes any time soon to get it, because it apparently makes the mice more aggressive.

    Athletes? Who cares about them? We need to apply this to super-powered soldiers that can run all over the world aggressively killing anything and everything in their path!

    Forget about ROID RAGE, now we have PEPCK APOPLECTICISM!

    --
    He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
    1. Re:PEPCK Apoplecticism by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      Steroids make you more agressive too and athletes haven't had any qualms about taking them, so I don't see that as a problem. The killer is of course you'd have to modify the dna before conception, which is kinda hard for a current athlete (unless they've invented a star trek DNA resequencer when I wasn't looking).

      The solder thing? You can bet 100% that this kind of thing is going on *already*. Where do you think the money comes for funding this kind of stuff.

    2. Re:PEPCK Apoplecticism by arivanov · · Score: 1

      Yeah... Let's not discuss a certain Australian female athlete taking a husband from the Ethiopian long distance running team for purposes of selective breeding a few years back. Let's not discuss the actual genealogy and breeding of this one: http://www.musclemayhem.com/front/content/view/238/120/ Though it looks like her mom and pop have supplemented that with the "traditional remedies" AKA steroids as well. And so on...

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    3. Re:PEPCK Apoplecticism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      exactly, just look what happened with Chris Benoit.

    4. Re:PEPCK Apoplecticism by techpawn · · Score: 1

      But what happens when the Red Skull comes looking for our super solider formula? Will We wind-up taking the only survivor of the program out with a sniper when he goes against government wishes to comply with registration too...

      --
      Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country did to you
    5. Re:PEPCK Apoplecticism by dwbassett42 · · Score: 1
      No matter how unethical the common public decries it as, as soon as the technology becomes available there will be people trying to genetically engineer a 'super soldier'. The sheer amount of money put into professional sports and military technology is an indicator that if the technology exists, there will be people willing to take the chance. You just have to genetically engineer a zygote, implant it into a surrogate mother from a 3rd world country who is willing to do such things for money, and have the baby brought to gestation at a facility in a 'country of convenience' (somewhere in eastern europe, SE asia, etc.). You now have your genetic superbaby.

      Similarly as soon as the technology to target and trigger genes for increased intelligence, beauty, immune system, etc. is found, there will be rich parents from all over the world willing to pay top dollar to ensure their child is a perfect beautiful genius, no matter what laws may be in place to stop such genetic tampering. Even if you pass laws in the U.S. and other 1st-world nations, once the technology exists there will be clinics in India, Bulgaria, Georgia, and such places where the genetic treatment can be done.

      I realize this technology has great potential to help cure all sorts of genetic and other health problems, but it really is a Pandora's box. Professor Hanson's statement:

      "Right now, this is impossible to do - putting a gene into muscle. It's unethical. And I don't think you'd want to do this. These animals are rather aggressive, we've noticed."
      seems incredibly naive to me. This is classic Pandora: he has too narrow of an idea of where and how his technology may be used or abused, and that others - even those with similar technical ability - may not share his sense of morality.
    6. Re:PEPCK Apoplecticism by Don853 · · Score: 1

      To use an example more people may recognize, Yao Ming was "created" by the Communist China-assisted marriage of two national basketball stars: http://www.time.com/time/asia/covers/501051114/story.html

  16. Not the speed afaik by Xest · · Score: 1

    I think the point isn't the speed, but the distance they can cover without stopping.

  17. If they experimented on humans this much... by porkThreeWays · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I've always wondered what would be possible if humans were regularly experimented on in the same fashion. Of course it's unethical, but I bet we'd have humans that can live 300 years and run 10,000 miles at a clip if we cut out the middle man ;)

    --
    If an officer ever threatens to taze you, say you have a pacemaker.
    1. Re:If they experimented on humans this much... by Natty+P · · Score: 1

      or end up like Bioshock....

    2. Re:If they experimented on humans this much... by superwiz · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Interesting signature. Are you sure that preventing an officer from tazering someone (even yourself) by telling a lie is not an abstraction of justice? If you want to prevent an officer from having the power to tazer innocent people why not... oh I don't know... vote for Ron Paul? :)

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    3. Re:If they experimented on humans this much... by prelelat · · Score: 1

      OR live 3 years and run 2 miles at a clip. either way it would be fun while it lasted ;)

    4. Re:If they experimented on humans this much... by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Why is it unethical? If you could save thousands of lives by curing a disease, but curing the disease required potentially deadly experiments on a few people, wouldn't it be unethical NOT to proceed with the research?

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    5. Re:If they experimented on humans this much... by JoshJ · · Score: 1

      So we'll mandate experiments on a few people to provide a better good for the rest of humanity? So much for freedom.

    6. Re:If they experimented on humans this much... by Jbcarpen · · Score: 1

      Furthermore, I'm sure there are plenty of people with terminal illnesses (especially the painful ones) who would absolutely leap on the opportunity to be guinea pigs for experimental treatments. If I were dying painfully I would certainly take a chance on a 1/1,000,000 long shot chance to survive, particularly since even if it failed the scientists would then know more about the condition and have a better chance to help the next guy.

      Now admittedly, the kinds of experiments being discussed here aren't disease treatments, but I'd bet that there are still people who would be willing to volunteer for human testing.

      All in all, I don't think it would be unethical to perform medical experiments on consenting, well informed, volunteers.

      --
      GENERATION 667: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation
    7. Re:If they experimented on humans this much... by umghhh · · Score: 1

      how many is few? Why limit the experiments to medicin and why exclude social engineering experiments like the red khmer did? After all "to keep you is no benefit. To destroy you is no loss" may still be valid.

      Yet as agen smith put it: it is anavoidable. Our resistance is futile.

    8. Re:If they experimented on humans this much... by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      I'm sure it's not an abstraction of justice... (I can't think of one except maybe 'legal stuff'?).

      Might be an obstruction though.

    9. Re:If they experimented on humans this much... by db32 · · Score: 1

      It has been done. Here and here are good places to start. You may even look up Bayer warcrimes while you are at it. We don't have humans that can live 300 years and run 10,000 miles at a clip... Wonder no more at the possibilities...

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    10. Re:If they experimented on humans this much... by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      This happens. I've been part of medical experiments.. you just sign a consent form and they give you the random stuff they're trying and you either live or die.

      In the UK we had one of these go wrong and several people actually died.. but OTOH they knew what they were signing up to.

    11. Re:If they experimented on humans this much... by timeOday · · Score: 1

      If you could save thousands of lives by curing a disease, but curing the disease required potentially deadly experiments on a few people, wouldn't it be unethical NOT to proceed with the research?
      Is it just me, or is that a quote from about 50% of all sci-fi films?
    12. Re:If they experimented on humans this much... by Scrameustache · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why is it unethical? If you could save thousands of lives by curing a disease, but curing the disease required potentially deadly experiments on a few people, wouldn't it be unethical NOT to proceed with the research? You first.
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    13. Re:If they experimented on humans this much... by superwiz · · Score: 1

      lol. ok, no more comments while going on 3 hours of sleep... maybe just this one.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    14. Re:If they experimented on humans this much... by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      It turns on the area of consent.

      If the people you are going to do the deadly experiments on do not consent, it's unethical (actually I'd say evil).

      If you lie to them about the risks... also unethical (and a lot of medical testing downplays the risks and doesn't help the testees when something terrible happens) and only slightly less evil.

      If you fully inform them off all the risks you are aware of and they give informed consent, then it is not evil.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    15. Re:If they experimented on humans this much... by FleaPlus · · Score: 3, Informative

      You first.

      Apparently many researchers who do muscle augmentation research have to turn down eager calls from athletes and their coaches who want to be human test subjects, looking for any way to boost their abilities.

    16. Re:If they experimented on humans this much... by aethogamous · · Score: 1

      Actually this happens all the time, in phase I trials. You test on mice, primates etc first to reduce the chance of testing something obviously deadly, but especially in cancer trials, first in human experiments may be deadly (my understanding is these trials are often on terminally ill patients).

    17. Re:If they experimented on humans this much... by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 1

      If you want to prevent an officer from having the power to tazer innocent people why not... oh I don't know... vote for Ron Paul? :) So that instead of being tasered by someone who at least theoretically answers to the people, you can be tasered by someone who answers only to his police corporation's board of directors. Excellent! That's some real progress there!
    18. Re:If they experimented on humans this much... by AdmiralDouglas · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Just don't forget that their are numerous requirements from politics that keep this sort of thing from happening. Look at Cancer research. A scientist doing a study on his treatment isn't going to let just anyone sign up, he's going to turn down anyone who is in a later stage of cancer because they're likely going to die anyway and his numbers will look terrible.

      Most research doesn't want to use someone who is terminally ill because their reports start to look bad. They aren't going to stack the odds against themselves. So now it requires people who are moderately healthy to try this stuff on. And did you notice the number of mice it is taking to do this study accurately? 500. 500 people who are moderately healthy. Now it's one thing if it's a beauty product, or some fat reducing pill. But it's quite another when it's a dangerous operation that very easily could kill you.

      And now back to the subject at hand, these mice have had their genetics messed with. These guys were part of this experiment before they were born. I agree, that if we could get consenting, well-informed volunteers for this it would be great, but how do you inform an embryo? How do you get consent?

      And as for the cracks between all those areas, there ARE many studies that they do on humans. These are the studies that have a pretty light chance of killing or maiming you, and therefore also have a pretty light chance of giving you super powers (like these mice). Low Risk, Low reward.

    19. Re:If they experimented on humans this much... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh for fuck's sake, get a brain moran. You are banking the lives of several people on the possible chance that there might be some kind of benefit. I think this is one case where Godwin's law really does not apply. I suppose I could skirt round it by asking you to look up Unit 731 on wikipedia, or historical source of your choice...

    20. Re:If they experimented on humans this much... by superwiz · · Score: 1

      Can you point to the article of the Constitution that states that police will be controlled by corporate interests? Instead of beina tazered by a police officer who laughs at the idea that he answers to people you would be greeted by a police officer that actually answers to the people.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    21. Re:If they experimented on humans this much... by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      You completely fail at risk analysis.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    22. Re:If they experimented on humans this much... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You first."

      So you wouldn't take one for the team if it cured cancer?

      Wow, you're certainly a selfish piece of crap.

    23. Re:If they experimented on humans this much... by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 1

      My impression was that the general libertarian goal (some of which I'm in favor of) is the privatization of many things, among them the local police forces. If that has nothing to do with Ron Paul, then my semi-humorously intended comment was misdirected.

    24. Re:If they experimented on humans this much... by GreggBz · · Score: 1

      KHHHAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNN! Yea, that turned out badly.

    25. Re:If they experimented on humans this much... by azuredrake · · Score: 1

      Why is it unethical? If you could save thousands of lives by curing a disease, but curing the disease required potentially deadly experiments on a few people, wouldn't it be unethical NOT to proceed with the research?
      It is unethical because nobody would choose to be the lab-human from behind the veil of ignorance In other words, if you were designing society's rules from a position where you had no idea which role you would be cast into, you would not create the role of "person to die in lab experiments for the greater good" because you yourself would not want to take on that role.
      --
      Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
    26. Re:If they experimented on humans this much... by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      It's somewhat harder to get consent for genetic modification, given the subject of the procedure will not exist until the experiment takes place.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    27. Re:If they experimented on humans this much... by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      if you were designing society's rules from a position where you had no idea which role you would be cast into, you would not create the role of "person to die in lab experiments for the greater good" because you yourself would not want to take on that role.

      Wrong. I would MUCH MUCH MUCH prefer having a 0.00001% chance of being experimented on combined with a 10% chance of getting The Plague, than a 0.0% chance of being experimented on combined with a 30% chance of getting The Plague.

      And that's not necessarily a contrived example. If, in the Dark Ages, someone actually had done controlled experiments on captives to see which of the items people were exposed to actually correlated with catching Plague, we could have found out that rats were the vector, then decimated the rat population, LONG before a third of Europe died.

      Some of these moral guidelines are nothing more than convoluted justifications for reflexive animal emotional reactions--excuses for thinking with feelings instead of reason.
      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    28. Re:If they experimented on humans this much... by azuredrake · · Score: 1

      No, it doesn't matter if one person would prefer it that way, it only matters if there is no objection from any member of the social contract. In a truly fair system, nothing is imposed upon anyone - all is agreed upon by all. What you claim is a "rational" system, that being the system optimized for the fewest total casualties to natural causes, does not take into account the quality of life of those sacrificed for the whole. This is held to be immoral if one believes that humans cannot be deprived of their right to pursue happiness.

      --
      Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
    29. Re:If they experimented on humans this much... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for registering.

    30. Re:If they experimented on humans this much... by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      No society has ever existed where everyone has the right to pursue happiness. This particular right is just one of a hundred factors that must be weighed against each other when designing a social contract.

      Mandatory experimentation would increase the net ability of a society to pursue happiness. Someone dying of plague doesn't have much ability to pursue happiness, does he?

      This seems like a much easier trade-off to make than, say, powers of conscription or taxation.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    31. Re:If they experimented on humans this much... by SailorSpork · · Score: 0

      I think that's what the Nazi's said. That's why we have a lot of dead Jews.

    32. Re:If they experimented on humans this much... by izomiac · · Score: 1

      Ethics aside, there are several reasons mice & bacteria are used for research. One of the most important is lifespan. If you experimented with humans (or gorillas or elephants or something) you'd have to wait decades before some of the genetic modifications would be easy to observe. Plus the researchers would start dying of old age before the experiment could be completed.

    33. Re:If they experimented on humans this much... by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      Somehow, I don't think life-saving medical research had anything to do with that. Nice try, though.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    34. Re:If they experimented on humans this much... by u8i9o0 · · Score: 1
      This has been debated quite a bit, over these experiments in particular.

      Why is it unethical? If you could save thousands of lives by curing a disease, but curing the disease required potentially deadly experiments on a few people, wouldn't it be unethical NOT to proceed with the research?
      Who decides on the severity of the disease in question? In fact, what qualifies as a disease? How about the disease of OCD? Or allergies? One way to read your comment is that if we could cure allergies to cats, the benefit to millions would far outweigh the loss of life - to which I would have to disagree.

      Do not dismiss this point, either. The definition of disease is important here. Referring to the linked example above, some of the Nazi scientists were looking to cure the disease of Gypsy, Jew, homosexuality, etc - and they deeply believed them to be terrible afflictions. Now repeat your comment with that definition in place. I doubt you'd have the same conviction.

      A conclusion that usually surfaces is that such lethal experiments have value if the situation is truly dire - otherwise, the testers are just treating the subjects as expendable material for their own curiosity or sadism. You can rationalize the costs after you find a cure, but before that happens there will be an ever increasing sum of lives consumed. If research stops without a cure, what rationalization do you offer then?
      --
      This is not my sig
    35. Re:If they experimented on humans this much... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In human genetics (and agriculture with plants and animals) one
      way around this technical and ethical hurdle is to look for
      pre-existing natural variation. With 6 billion people out there,
      there are probably several people altered PEPCK-C expression.
      For starters, you start testing PEPCK-C levels in elete athletes
      and compare it to levels in non athletes.

      Then the question is: is it worth screening millions of children
      for PEPCK-C levels to find one potential champion long distance runner....

    36. Re:If they experimented on humans this much... by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Yea... and it is a very gray area.

      We tend to genetically modify ourselves by our selection of spouses.

      A group could decide that they were going to self breed in a certain way. However as the children reached the ability to decide on their own (I'm talking about legal age), they would not be bound to the group decision.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    37. Re:If they experimented on humans this much... by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "You first."

      Volunteers first. There will be plenty, given the option. Maybe not me, but that does not matter.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    38. Re:If they experimented on humans this much... by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 1

      I believe Ron Paul would leave the funding of (or lack thereof) public services like police protection up to the states. He's more of an uber-strict Constitutional Constructionist rather than a batshiat-crazy libertarian.

    39. Re:If they experimented on humans this much... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think its a very good point. I'll sway in a slightly different direction though. There are terminal diseases that people die from that can be fixed. Mental degradation, heart conditions, wide range of cancers, muscle and organ atrophy, accelerated aging and list goes on and on. No hope, no escape. Would you choose a marginal chance of survival that would increase with every volunteer (corpse or otherwise) or certain, possibly slow and painful death? Why not allow those who are dead already to take a chance so that they may live or at least increase chances of others to come? Ethics?

    40. Re:If they experimented on humans this much... by juhaz · · Score: 1

      I agree, that if we could get consenting, well-informed volunteers for this it would be great, but how do you inform an embryo? How do you get consent? You could argue the same thing about people with hereditary diseases. What right have they to inflict it on their children without consent? And they're not just doing an experiment that MIGHT harm the child, they KNOW it will.
    41. Re:If they experimented on humans this much... by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      You can rationalize the costs after you find a cure,

      You can rationalize the costs before the cure as long as you hire an outside consultant to come in and make up numbers for "probability of finding a cure due to this research." Consultants are great.
      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
  18. Mighty? by robably · · Score: 5, Funny

    So the modified mouse runs on the treadmill for six hours, while the normal mouse has a nice sit down and watches it. Maybe this modification just makes mice stupid.

    1. Re:Mighty? by OverlordQ · · Score: 1

      Maybe this modification just makes mice stupid.

      Well remember, humans are only the third smartest creatures on Earth. After dolphins and mice . . . so what does that say about you ;)

      --
      Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    2. Re:Mighty? by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

      Well you know what your average chump at the gym is like,...

    3. Re:Mighty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, whatever makes you feel better about being a lazy scrawny weakling.

    4. Re:Mighty? by NekSnappa · · Score: 1

      I was thinking along the same lines. Like maybe it has nothing to do with the muscles and such, but instead just makes them obsessive compulsives.

      --
      I want to shoot the messenger!
  19. Smarter mouse? by oo7tushar · · Score: 5, Funny

    All I see is the that the "slower" mouse realizes that they're going nowhere on the treadmill.

    1. Re:Smarter mouse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've heard of the "Rat Race", but this is ridiculous.

    2. Re:Smarter mouse? by garompeta · · Score: 1

      That means that the enzyme is not only increasing strength but also diminishing intelligence... that makes sense, doesn't it? I wonder what happens to its penis... xD ...and what would happen if they applied this to a female mice? Does it turn them blonde with super boobs?

  20. Here He Comes to Save the Day! by Apple+Acolyte · · Score: 1

    Mighty Mouse is on his way!

    --
    Part of the hardcore faithful who believed in Apple long before it was cool again to do so
  21. Pathetic! by east+coast · · Score: 1

    Do you really think a couple of hyperactive mice are going to stop General Zod?

    You guys really need to check your definition of what a super villain is.

    --
    Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
  22. coming on? by TrippTDF · · Score: 1

    "If anyone feels a super villain coming on"

    Like in a bar? should I be worried about getting touched by evil people? Are genetically modified mice really my only line of defense?

    1. Re:coming on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone knows that the big-name supervillains are all gay. The Joker, obviously. Magneto, Ian McKellen, duh. Lex Luthor, notice the double-Ls, jealous of Superman's girlfriend. Chairman of the RNC, hell yeah. It goes on and on.

  23. This might overturn the old adage ... by schwit1 · · Score: 1
    "The early bird gets the worm, bit it's the second mouse that gets the cheese."


    These mice may be quick enough to not only get the cheese but also leave a tip. And if you piss them off they will move the loaded mousetrap onto your bedroom floor.

  24. Watch out by Daimanta · · Score: 1

    Superior abilities breed superior ambition.

    Watch your cheese!

    --
    Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
    1. Re:Watch out by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      Superior abilities breed superior ambition.
      Watch your cheese!

      Cue the quote:
      "That's one ugly mouse .. and he's beating up on our cheese!"

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    2. Re:Watch out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe Gene Roddenberry had the timeframe for the Eugenics War wrong (according to TOS, the Eugenics wars occured in the 1990s *grin*), but he might still be right in the end. . .

  25. RTFA much? by cduffy · · Score: 5, Informative

    Ten times as many mitochondria in the muscles.

    1. Re:RTFA much? by nomadic · · Score: 5, Funny

      I think you mean midichloridians.

    2. Re:RTFA much? by aliquis · · Score: 1

      If that is the case, will they die much younger?

    3. Re:RTFA much? by cduffy · · Score: 1

      Since they're still reproducing at 3 years, it doesn't appear so.

    4. Re:RTFA much? by GeckoX · · Score: 2, Informative

      Again, RTFA. It's right there. They live longer, age slower. 3 year old mice having babies...as mentioned in the article, for a mouse that's like an 80 year old human having a baby.

      Anything else you'd like summed up from the article? ;)

      --
      No Comment.
    5. Re:RTFA much? by dintech · · Score: 1

      that's like an 80 year old human having a baby.

      Anything else you'd like summed up from the article? ;)


      I think that's enough for the moment... :S

    6. Re:RTFA much? by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Yeah, could you please post it all here so I can read it ;)

      Nah, but ok, I confess to the crime of not RTFA :D

      I watched the video!! :D

  26. We're gonna need by ackthpt · · Score: 1

    We're gonna need a bigger trap.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  27. Steroids make people more agressive, too. by mr_mischief · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I see little reason to think that we'll see any social arguments about this genetic modification that we don't already see about a) steroids, hormones, and precursors or b) genetic modifications in general.

    Isn't this linked to the Wired article from over three years ago about experiments at Howard Hughes Medical Institute in which researchers were messing with PPAR-delta and got similar results? Where's the reference to earlier work on the subject?

    1. Re:Steroids make people more agressive, too. by rubypossum · · Score: 1

      Maybe we should have a marathon for mice? Whichever GM team can make the fastest mouse wins!

      --
      I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours. - Hunter S. Thompson
  28. This has me worried by rbanzai · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Originally genetic modification was just things like making mice glow. Now they're creating results that would be appealing to exactly the wrong people: the military.

    As soon as a science has military application it gets billions poured into it. Even if there are beneficial offshoots to the research that follows the repercussions are usually awful. Think atom bombs and biological weapons.

    It is not unreasonable at this point to wonder where we're going to end up as a species. If we can genetically create human beings with abilities that far outpace anything an unmodified can do will that become the norm?

    In my lifetime (40 years) genetic modification has gone from theory to fact. I am worried that it will be horribly abused.

    1. Re:This has me worried by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      What are the military applications of these genetically engineered mice?

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    2. Re:This has me worried by AndersOSU · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure that the first transgenic mouse was created to study cancer (actually to get cancer so that we could study it.)

    3. Re:This has me worried by TheMeuge · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As soon as a science has military application it gets billions poured into it. Even if there are beneficial offshoots to the research that follows the repercussions are usually awful. Think atom bombs and biological weapons.


      You have a twisted view of the world, my friend.

      I think a far more rational way of interpreting what happens is that the offshoots are awful (atom bombs, biological weapons), while the repercussions are beneficial (infectious disease research, nuclear power). Far more people are living longer, and better lives because of military-driven advancements in science, then the number of people that have been harmed or killed by the inventions that follow.
    4. Re:This has me worried by C0rinthian · · Score: 2, Funny

      Simple. You can tie little packages of Freedom to their backs and drop them into the Middle East.

      Of course, by "Freedom" I mean "High-Power Explosives"

    5. Re:This has me worried by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to worry, the GM mice will kill humans off before we have a chance to make the military application.

    6. Re:This has me worried by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The human body has much more complexity to deal with and the fact that you don't have to alter our level of consciousness to the point of a vegetable means there won't be any genetically modified humans any time soon.

    7. Re:This has me worried by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

      They found a use for dolphins in the military:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_dolphin

      I am sure a mouse with a bug and transmitter or a microbomb on it could be developed, or more likely IS being developed.

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    8. Re:This has me worried by sckeener · · Score: 1

      All the military applications of this would be a short term advantage, one or two generations, before it is too wide spread to be an issue. After that it is the government that should fear its people. Modifying people for military applications is a sure way to topple a government.

      Anyone watching 4400? Creating new sub-cultures with the power to do things others can't, isn't a good method for bringing people together. It is a receipt for ripping societies apart.

      Now if they kept the numbers small it wouldn't be a big issue...no different then all the NFL players breeding.

      --
      "Only one thing, is impossible for god: to find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." Mark Twain
    9. Re:This has me worried by lanroth · · Score: 1

      If we can genetically create human beings with abilities that far outpace anything an unmodified can do will that become the norm?

      I sincerely hope so.

    10. Re:This has me worried by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

      And if you do alter the consciousness to the level of a vegetable it can still run for office, and win!

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    11. Re:This has me worried by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Before going overboard with dystopian visions of genetically engineered super-humans, here's something to ponder:

      Raising a 2-year-old modified like this.

      The parents would never survive.

    12. Re:This has me worried by cyphercell · · Score: 2, Informative

      give them the plague, it will be way more mobile than before.

      --
      Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
    13. Re:This has me worried by monomania · · Score: 1

      I was about to post these same thoughts. Why is it that the absolute worst parts of Science Fiction get turned into fact before the fun parts?

    14. Re:This has me worried by magarity · · Score: 1

      or a microbomb
       
      lol - 'microbomb'... what's that for, blowing up evil nanobots? A better use for attack mice would be to infect them with a viral or bacterial agent to which they are immune but humans are not and have them run bite the ankles of the bad guys. Note: Be careful handling them during their pre-mission briefing.

    15. Re:This has me worried by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nuclear power is good?!

    16. Re:This has me worried by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now they're creating results that would be appealing to exactly the wrong people: the military.

      Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't think the military will be working with weaponized mice.

    17. Re:This has me worried by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In my lifetime (40 years) genetic modification has gone from theory to fact. I am worried that it will be horribly abused.

      No need to worry; it certainly will be.
    18. Re:This has me worried by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Ok, all three of you (the GP, and your sibling poster), remember the question was about genetically engineered mice? Of the three, yours is the only one that hints that you read the "genetically engineered" part of the question, and even then, would the additional mobility make that much of a difference in helping spread the plague?

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    19. Re:This has me worried by pclminion · · Score: 1

      Originally genetic modification was just things like making mice glow. Now they're creating results that would be appealing to exactly the wrong people: the military.

      Feh. Get over it. News flash: The military has NUCLEAR WEAPONS. What exactly are you afraid they are going to be able to do that they couldn't already do? Are they going to pit their "super-soldiers" against an enemy with tactical nukes?

      We can already explode the world several times over, I really don't see how it could get any worse.

    20. Re:This has me worried by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is it that the absolute worst parts of Science Fiction

      I know exactly what you mean, I thought Dark Angel sucked too.

    21. Re:This has me worried by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 1

      What? You are saying the beneficial offshoots are overshadowed by the military applications?

      Like GPS for universal navigation? Or MRIs through advanced understanding of nuclear forces? Or satellite based telescopes or long distance long running space probes?

      Humans have long had the capability to savage other humans without scientific progress. Don't think scientific progress is the bad guy here, it's people, for as long back as we've had the story of Cain and Abel.

    22. Re:This has me worried by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 1

      ...appealing to exactly the wrong people: the military

      You may be correct.

      Bushwinkle would like GM Squirrels in the arsenal.

    23. Re:This has me worried by Faw · · Score: 1

      There's no need to worried, I'm sure they'll have a 'fear blocking serum' soon. :)

    24. Re:This has me worried by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      Nuclear power is very good. If it wasn't for nuclear power, our world would be a cold dark ball. Nuclear power generated locally is a bit more dangerous, but is still better than just about any other large-scale power generation method we've devised.

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    25. Re:This has me worried by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      They could create a weapon that is more versatile, less obvious, and capable of leaving the area it is used in ready for immediate habitation. The problem with big craters and glowing cities is that no one wants to live there. For all the effectiveness of nuclear weapons, we don't use them much. Why? Because the pros are outweighed by the cons.

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    26. Re:This has me worried by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you have an uninformed view.

    27. Re:This has me worried by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now they're creating results that would be appealing to exactly the wrong people: the military.
      Nothing wrong with the military using it for defense. It's the offense part that most people have a problem with.

    28. Re:This has me worried by E++99 · · Score: 0
      Wow. My relatives in the military are going to be devastated when I tell them that they are exactly the wrong type of people. I'll be sure to keep the news of the mighty mouse secret, as it will surely be very appealing to them.

      But srsly...

      If we can genetically create human beings with abilities that far outpace anything an unmodified can do will that become the norm? If you subscribe to neodarwinian evolution, this is impossible. There is no such thing as a "genetically modified" form that would not be possible for an "unmodified" creature to mutate to naturally. This is true at least for the foreseeable future, in which we can only make relatively small modifications or recombinations of existing genomes.
    29. Re:This has me worried by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Miitary applications? Wait until they combine the glowing with the increased speed, endurance and agressiveness.

      I have three words for you: Tracer Round Mice.

    30. Re:This has me worried by magarity · · Score: 1

      the wrong people: the military.
       
      I hope you're from Myanmar or somesuch place that's ruled by an unelected and unaccountable military and not a western democracy where the military is completely subject to, and accountable to, civilian elected government. There are places where the military really are the wrong people and other places where the military protect the citizens' right to call them the wrong people.

    31. Re:This has me worried by cyphercell · · Score: 1

      from the video, I would think it would be about a thousand times more mobile, unless of course they just run in circles.

      --
      Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
    32. Re:This has me worried by dvice_null · · Score: 1

      > In my lifetime (40 years) genetic modification has gone from theory to fact. I am worried that it will be horribly abused.

      Anything can be used either for good or evil. You can use water for healing or for torturing. But I like to think that eventually there is more good than evil, so the more we know, the better it is for us.

    33. Re:This has me worried by Agripa · · Score: 1

      There is no such thing as a "genetically modified" form that would not be possible for an "unmodified" creature to mutate to naturally.

      I am not clear how serious you are being so I will sum up my argument in three words:

      Ornithology recapitulates physiology.
    34. Re:This has me worried by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Broken window fallacy. Read about it and think about how it affects your argument.

    35. Re:This has me worried by TheLink · · Score: 1

      You can control the direction the mice run. They've solved that years ago.

      Since they're stronger they can carry a payload that controls them.

      Mod some more spy squirrels too and get Iran upset :).

      --
    36. Re:This has me worried by Ed91 · · Score: 1

      Heightened aggression in athletes = not desirable. Heightened aggression in soldiers? Hmm..

    37. Re:This has me worried by cyphercell · · Score: 1

      some simple math, after coming back to this and watching the video again.

      rate 20 m/min

      1000/20 = 50min to run a kilometer

      Wild mouse
      Distance 0.2 km

      GM mouse
      Distance 4.9 km

      4.9/0.2 = 24.5

      that's 24 and a half times further

      50*4.9 = 245/60 = 4.0833 hours for mighty mouse

      50*0.2 = 10/60 = 1/6 hours = 10 min for his natural brethren

      about three hours and fifty minutes longer, of course the mice both stopped and rested I wonder if these little guys run in four hour shifts maybe taking a half hour lunch?

      On to more interesting speculation I wonder if they just juiced up the mouse's natural steroids (glands or whatever), if so I don't think it would be that stable in the long run (heart attacks, etc.?).

      --
      Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
  29. Re:20 meters to minute? Awesome! by SQLGuru · · Score: 2, Funny

    Yes, but what... is the air-speed velocity of an unladen genetically modified with PEPCK-C swallow?

    Layne

  30. These mice... by alx5000 · · Score: 1

    Nigel Tufnel: These mice all go to eleven. Look, right across the treadmill, eleven, eleven, eleven and...
    Marty DiBergi: Oh, I see. And most mice go up to ten?
    Nigel Tufnel: Exactly.
    Marty DiBergi: Does that mean it's more resistant? Is it any more resistant?
    Nigel Tufnel: Well, it's one more resistant, isn't it? It's not ten. You see, most scientist, you know, will be chasing tens. You're on ten here, all the way up, all the way up, all the way up, you're on ten on your lab. Where can you go from there? Where?
    Marty DiBergi: I don't know.
    Nigel Tufnel: Nowhere. Exactly. What we do is, if we need that extra push over the cliff, you know what we do?
    Marty DiBergi: Put it up to eleven.
    Nigel Tufnel: Eleven. Exactly. One more resistant.
    Marty DiBergi: Why don't you just make ten more resistant and make ten be the top number and make that a little more resistant?
    Nigel Tufnel: [pause] These go to eleven.

    --
    My 0.02 cents
    1. Re:These mice... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, well my mice go to...over NINE THOUSAND!!!11eleven1!1!

  31. yikes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That means when they turn evil or zombie they wont stop chewing on you for a long time unlike standard mice.

    These super mice in zombie form could completely consume your body instead of leaving a brainless corpse like regular zombie mice do.

  32. nice redudant numbers for the lazy by Racemaniac · · Score: 1

    'can run five to six kilometres at a speed of 20 meters per minute on a treadmill, for up to six hours before stopping'
    20 meters per minute = 1.2 km/h, so if they do it for 6 km's, that's about 5 hours
    but i find the redundant data a bit stupid (not to mention the weird unit for speed, just use m/s or km/h, something we're used to seeing).

  33. Apple will sue for copyright infringement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After all the "Mighty Mouse" is a trademark of Apple Computer.

  34. Any improvement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Any improvement over Apple's Mighty Mouse would be good. I mean squeezing the sides to activate button '4'. Come on!

  35. Re:20 meters to minute? Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's a mind-boggling 0.745645431 mph!


    Or 1.2 Km/h.
  36. Coming on? by giuntag · · Score: 1

    Everybody knows how the story goes: after mighty mouse experiments, both Russia ans the states turn to secret experiments to build human superheroes for the army, and it ends up in WW3, the world being destroyed and a new kind of humanity in search of a new planet: The One

    Rick Veitch saw this coming, twenty years ago!

  37. that would suck by Elsapotk421 · · Score: 1

    I was on the pursuit of this mouse that lived in my place for about 4 months up until I finally killed it by dropping something on it....luckily nothing splattered. that thing was a pain in the ass to get rid of. it wouldn't fall for mouse traps so I actually had to hunt it.

    --
    We came,we saw, we kicked it's ass!
    1. Re:that would suck by TheLink · · Score: 1

      4 months? Wow that's what I call a long run :).

      --
  38. Spidey sense? by SpuriousLogic · · Score: 3, Informative

    Anyone else remember this from SpiderMan? The serum that is used on Norman Oswald was first used on mice to turn them into super mice, but had the side effect of making them incredibly aggressive....

  39. Re:20 meters to minute? Awesome! by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

    They're also Mice. An ant can lift 50x its own body weight... even if that's only a few grams. A flea can jump X it's own length, even if that's only a few feet.

    Still 6km is over 3.5 miles. I'd like to see the majority of ./ers walk that, let alone run at a pace like this mouse has done.

    Are there any side effects, such as sudden death?

  40. The first thing I thought of was... by Faw · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Captain America and the super-soldier serum.

    1. Re:The first thing I thought of was... by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      Captain America and the super-soldier serum. Yup. Maybe no one wants hyper aggressive athletes, but lean, mean, killing machines? There's a market for that.
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

  41. I know i would be... by Chris+whatever · · Score: 1

    Pissed off after someone makes me run for 6 hours on a treadmill ,,,,,,

  42. They need to create "Bunny" version by denis-The-menace · · Score: 4, Funny

    The Energizer battery company would pay big $ for such a LIVING mascot.
    With all that $, they'll be able to fund future research...

    --
    Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
    1. Re:They need to create "Bunny" version by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sure, they could be the mascot, but they could also be a source of power. Imagine millions of these running little turbines!

    2. Re:They need to create "Bunny" version by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      I love this idea, especially since this genetic modification seems to cause aggression. What an awesome mascot that would be. "The Energizer Rabbit -- he just keeps going and going and killing and killing..."

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  43. Re:@#%!@ Quicktime... by Leto-II · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Has apple decided that people who don't use XP/Vista/OSX are no longer important enough to need Quicktime? I tried to install quicktime on my windoze 2000 box, and encountered several problems:
    • Newest quicktime only for XP/Vista
    • Quicktime 6.5.2 is available for 2k, but doesn't run well
    • When the mouse.mov file is opened in 6.5.2 Quicktime complains that it needs a plugin, and promptly crashes


    I'll get off my soapbox now and watch this get modded down to troll status. Wow... Maybe you should use an OS that's better supported, like Linux. The .mov file opened up great in Firefox and Totem on my Gentoo box.
    --
    Do not anger the worm.
  44. The Shrimp? by _14k4 · · Score: 1

    Did anyone else think of that shrimp video where it's running on the treadmill to the Yakety Sax music?

  45. "I'm all ears" -GR13 by rubycodez · · Score: 1

    Unisol!

  46. Re:20 meters to minute? Awesome! by Clanked · · Score: 3, Funny

    A european or african swallow?

  47. NIMH by tim_darklighter · · Score: 1

    As long as none of them were named Jenner or Nicodemus, I think we are safe. (as yes I realize they were rats in the book/movie).

  48. Headline by Mazin07 · · Score: 1

    Apple Inc. produces Mighty Mouse

    There, fixed that outdated headline for you.

    1. Re:Headline by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      When the Apple Mighty Mouse was release it was by Apple Computer, Inc. Not Apple Inc.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  49. Mice with friggin' lasers ? by freaker_TuC · · Score: 1

    Mice with friggin' lasers on their foreheads ? Lasermice ? ..
    Sharks were not so mobile on dry lands anyways .. they had to adapt!

    --
    --- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
  50. Mighty Mouse by Arancaytar · · Score: 2, Funny

    Does it come with two buttons?

    1. Re:Mighty Mouse by KnowThePath · · Score: 1

      No, and they don't run linux either, in case you were wondering...

  51. It's a CYA by mattr · · Score: 1

    No the supervillains are the guys that got treated in the secret human program run last year, which proved to make them psychotic too. Now they are running extra mouse trials so they can make it public as a CYA.

  52. O_o by Algen · · Score: 1

    Imagine a beowulf cluster of mighty mice with lasers on their heads ..Btw anybody know how many dpi these mice are ?

  53. Worry but don't fear. by DarkTempes · · Score: 1

    While atomic bombs and biological weapons are 'terrible', in terms of overall damage and pain/suffering they don't compare to conventional explosives (which no calls inhumane). And in terms of nuclear technology, I imagine the nuclear research was easily worth the terrible cost in lives (an invasion of japan/extended war would likely have had many more casualties and affected lives) and will eventually touch more lives in a positive fashion (if it hasn't already) through the gains to society. Biological weapons have historically just been useful as a scare tactic, when used they do horrible things to the people they do affect but arn't really viable weapons even if they didn't have terrible side effects (problems with dispersal, keeping it from affecting your own people/troops/etc). I would also imagine a ton of research could have been banned to prevent biological weapons from ever being created. I also imagine far more people would have died from disease/hunger/etc due to whatever positive creation came to light before someone decided the knowledge could be abused.

    Researching anything for almost any use is fine in my book. Creating things from gained knowledge for the sole purpose of Evil(TM) is bad. Stunting research for fear of such Evil(TM) is almost just as bad. As a species if we're going to survive in a geographic time scale, we're going to need to learn alot more. To make a nice random equality, it's like giving up our freedoms in fear that someone might abuse them to hurt us. Is the possibility of far less than a percent of the population suffering something they shouldn't have to worth 100% of the population suffering something different?

  54. Site not Slashdotted? by JJRRutgers · · Score: 4, Funny

    A direct link to a Quicktime movie on the headline and the host server didn't get slashdotted? I wonder if they applied the same genetic modification to the server?

    1. Re:Site not Slashdotted? by cciRRus · · Score: 1

      A direct link to a Quicktime movie on the headline and the host server didn't get slashdotted? I wonder if they applied the same genetic modification to the server?
      Simple. The servers are powered by a beowulf cluster of mighty mouse.
      --
      w00t
    2. Re:Site not Slashdotted? by felipekk · · Score: 1

      If you look close enough and into the right place you will notice that the movie actually comes in a CD glued on top of a mice...

    3. Re:Site not Slashdotted? by insertwackynamehere · · Score: 1

      ...comes in a CD glued on top of a mice These mice are so powerful that even in the singular, they are referred to as plural
    4. Re:Site not Slashdotted? by felipekk · · Score: 1

      English is not my primary language. This was helpful, I didn't knew mice was not a word.

    5. Re:Site not Slashdotted? by insertwackynamehere · · Score: 1

      haha in that case i am sorry, I didn't mean to offend anyone. but yeah, the singular is "mouse" and the plural is "mice".

  55. as long as those experimented on agree with you by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    it's not ok to decide to sacrifice someone life for a good cause without their knowledge

    it is 100% ok to volunteer to have your life sacrificied for a good cause

    it is very important to understand and discern the difference between these two scenarios

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:as long as those experimented on agree with you by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      it's not ok to decide to sacrifice someone life for a good cause without their knowledge
      This has happened every time every country has ever gone to war.
      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
  56. you must have the Microsoft version connected .. by freaker_TuC · · Score: 1

    You might have the Microsoft version connected,
    once it bites in your USB plug you'll never be able to unplug it ..

    That happens when you don't think about Mice-World-Domination!

    --
    --- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
  57. Quite the Opposite by BlackGriffen · · Score: 1

    According to TFA, and a comment above mine, they still reproduce at 3 years, which is the equivalent of 80 human years. This makes the most sense, to me, if the aging process is mainly driven by the breakdown of mitochondria as animals age. This also fits with the calorie restriction data available. What I would love to know is: what is the mitochondria count in their non-muscle cells, can the process be tweaked to produce different mitochondria levels so that we can test for senescence as a function of age and mitochondrial density, are there any other drawbacks beyond the obvious increase in food demand and reduction in sociability, and how well do these mice do on various calorie restriction diets (ie is the increase in life-span greater or lesser than for normal mice)?

    1. Re:Quite the Opposite by aliquis · · Score: 1

      It can't be that more mitochondria leads to less work at each for the same amount of energy consumtion in the cell and therefor less wear on whatever? But I had the impression the higher oxidisation was the problem, but them I'm no biology guy so what do I know :)

  58. Super-smart and now super-fast! by a-zarkon! · · Score: 1
    I welcome our new rodent overlords!

    Am I the only one who remembers that mice are the most intelligent life on earth?

  59. Gerbils. by Organic+Brain+Damage · · Score: 1

    It begins with Mice, but we quickly escalate to Gerbils.

    The gay supervillain thinks he's insering a normal Gerbil, butt he inserts the GM-Uber-Gerbil and that's the end of him.

  60. Re:20 meters to minute? Awesome! by darthflo · · Score: 1

    It's only about a one-hour walk or half-hour jog. Everybody over 12 and under 60 should be *really* concerned if they don't manage to do it.
    If you're talking about scaling this up according to size/weight differences, it becomes a whole different deal. Estimating a mouse's length at about 15 cm and a person's at 2 meters, one had to make some 84 kilometers at 14 km/h. For comparison: A marathon is some 42 kilometers and done (world record) in two hours and a few minutes. I don't know too much about human stamina and so on, but when scaled up those little beasts might have themselves a photofinish against human world champs.

  61. Super Soldier? by Pac · · Score: 1

    we should hope that the scientists are correct in saying that athletes won't be modifying their genes any time soon to get it, because it apparently makes the mice more aggressive.

    Is it just me being paranoid or does anyone else see the obvious application of an ultra-resistant hyper-aggressive human? Isn't a soldier capable of running for hours without stopping while killing everyone on his/her path without doubt or remorse one of those weapons that make generals and politicians dream wet dreams of a war to end all wars?

  62. these mice have no food scarcity by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    that's what makes them possible

    all the experiments are doing is letting loose the maximum potential of the mouse. mother nature, evolution, purposefully attenuates this potential for an obvious reason: this mouse outruns, outlives, outreproduces... and OUTEATS normal mice

    put this supermouse in the wild, and it will be quickly dead. because real mice face an enormous food resource pressure. and so it pays in the wild to need very little food, even when this reduces your overall capacity in other avenues of your existence. this supermouse will quickly starve to death with muscles that burn through calories like a jet engine set on maximum thrust

    of course in contemporary human society, we greatly admire these mice. because we, like the supermice, have defeated the limitation of scarce food sources in our existence. we have all the food we could ever want to eat. and so we are all fat. in human history, this condition on a large scale is very rare, if nonexistent. throughout most of our evolutionary history, we've been faced with food shortages. and so our full potentials have been genetically self-limited to survive

    if we could eat mcdonalds all day every day and run 5 marathons a week, then go home and screw our girlfriends for 8 hours straight (who can get pregnant at age 65)... solve AIDS and the Riemann Hypothesis before we nod off for the 3 hours of sleep we only need every night, AND live to the age of 175, we would want this mouse genetic modifcation too

    becuase we don't have limitations on our food supply, and the self-limitation evolution has given us to survive meager diets is not useful to us anymore

    and therefore, our grandchildren probably will get this modification someday

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  63. 20 meters per minute = 0.74 mph by giafly · · Score: 1

    "An Ohio laboratory has produced genetically modified mice which 'can run five to six kilometres at a speed of 20 meters per minute on a treadmill, for up to six hours before stopping,' as well as a number of other remarkable feats.
    Remarkable? A 0.74 mph mouse is remarkably slow.
    A domestic cat can run at speeds of 30 mph.
    --
    Reduce, reuse, cycle
    1. Re:20 meters per minute = 0.74 mph by fluffy99 · · Score: 1

      Try getting that cat to run for 4-hours though. Really not a fair comparison. Hell I can sprint 14mph for short distances and run a much more relaxed 7mph for 10 miles.

  64. Speedy Gonzales by damaki · · Score: 1

    They created Speedy Gonzales? Let's make a real Road Runner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roadrunner) next time! Nature definitely sucks.

    --
    Stupidity is the root of all evil.
  65. FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE by AragornSonOfArathorn · · Score: 0

    FATMOUSE MAKES EVERYTHING A LOT BETTER. HE DOESN'T MAKE THINGS. HE MAKES THEM BETTER.
    Fatmouse cares not about your stupid lameness filter. Fatmouse must ramble on and on and on in lower-case letters to get past filter. Fatmouse cannot be stopped by any filter.
    FATMOUSE MUST FEED.

    --
    sudo eat my shorts
  66. Two interesting points by kiick · · Score: 1

    Not so fast, you super-athlete wanna-bes.
    According to wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphenolpyruvate_carboxykinase
    over expression of this gene also causes type II diabetes. Not a great trade off.

    However, it's also interesting, according to the article, that these mice have a lot more mitochondria, and they live longer. That would tend to support the mitochondrial theory of aging, which says, basically, that cells get old because their mitochondria wear out.

  67. unethical? get over it! by m2943 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    But Professor Hanson played this down. "Right now, this is impossible to do - putting a gene into muscle. It's unethical.

    I'm tired of people claiming that it's "unethical" to enhance one's body--or destroy it for that matter. What substances I ingest or what modifications I make to my body is my own business. Even genetic modifications to one's own children aren't automatically "unethical".

    Genetic engineering on humans is going to happen. Get over it.

    1. Re:unethical? get over it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well genetic modifications to humans are always done by nature wich also includes humans all the time. We are evolving too as the rest of the species. And yes it could be accelerated too.

      Now. Genetic modification I think that should be done with extreme care since is just another new procedure and not too much tested. Keep also in mind that you can't think at it as the usual "the food I eat or the water I drink". You would be drastically changing the genetic pool of an entire comunity by feeding it with modified genetic code.

      Have you ever thought that you could be feeding genetic code for your descendece but also posibbly to mine (wouldn't be mine or yours as the posesive meaning but ok just for the relational term). Therefore I want to tell you "hold your horses". Sometimes by trying to make good things you can end doing wrong ones if you don't use the head when it was a good ide to do it.

  68. Re:20 meters to minute? Awesome! by realthing02 · · Score: 1

    Estimating a mouse's length at about 15 cm and a person's at 2 meters...

    Well, there goes my porn career...

  69. New Flash: "No food scarcity in NY supermarkets!!" by Pac · · Score: 1

    becuase we don't have limitations on our food supply, and the self-limitation evolution has given us to survive meager diets is not useful to us anymore

    I don't know exactly where you live or who you are, but maybe it would be useful if you could specify who are "we" in the sentence "we don't have limitations on our food supply". Because anyone with a fraction of a normal mouse's intelligence would think food scarcity is a very serious problem for at least 80% of humanity. At this very minute, all over the planet. Or maybe you should expand you information sources.

  70. well i apologize by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    for those of you in the hindu kush and the serengeti tuning into this slashdot discussion

    the western world is what my words applied to

    you know: lard asses, walmart, SUVs, stripmalls, and starbucks?

    you know: the only places that would even vaguely care about this mouse research, and where this mouse research is taking place, and where 90% of the readers of this website reside?

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  71. Nuclear power is good? by IdeaMan · · Score: 1

    Nuclear energy research is good. Think x-rays of your teeth, broken bones. And that's just the tip of the nuclear medicine iceberg.

    --
    They ARE out to get you simply because They are in it for themselves and they don't care about you.
  72. Re:New Flash: "No food scarcity in NY supermarkets by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

    Maybe the "we" the GP was referring to is the same "we" that has the luxury to not only read but post to slashdot. There is no problem with food shortages that are not directly and purposefully caused by human beings.

  73. I, for one, welcome our... by OnlyHalfEvil · · Score: 1

    I find it funny how the summary suggest the mice'll protect us from supervillains.

    Being that the modification makes them more aggressive I think these mice will BE the supervillains.

  74. Re:20 meters to minute? Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What do you mean, an African or European swallow?

  75. "super strength" mutations in humans by alexo · · Score: 1

    A quick Googling unearthed some interesting articles about "super strength" effects in humans:
    "Mighty mouse" gene found in humans
    Rare condition gives toddler super strength

  76. Re:@#%!@ Quicktime... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "that's great if that's all you want to run. what you won't be able to run is any real apps."

    Yeah because we all know that Linux lives only in the land of make believe and only fictional applications run on Linux.

    Get real, the original poster was running a 7 year old unsupported operating system (that initially wasn't even meant to run as a desktop system no less). Linux is supported by an active community. Further, you can find viable alternatives to most applications that are capable of being run on Linux. Your FUD is old and tired, please lay it to rest.

  77. Rely on them?! by Sloppy · · Score: 1

    ..it apparently makes the mice more aggressive. If anyone feels a super villain coming on, at least we can rely on these Mighty Mice.
    Folks, this is where super villains come from! You can rely on the mice to be the super villains! They sure as hell aren't going to be fighting crime, except perhaps in the pursuit of wiping out their rivals.
    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    1. Re:Rely on them?! by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Fortunately I've stock up on CheesoNite and kryptocheese?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  78. PEPCK-C? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I more a fan of COKE-ORG.

  79. OMG! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's the PAX!

  80. Green Goblin anyone? by SilverBlade2k · · Score: 0

    This sounds exactly like how Normal Osborne turned into the Green Goblin in the movie...

  81. aggressive? by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    Try and make me run on a treadmill for 6 hours and I would be pretty aggressive too.

  82. Mouse on Strings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The unnatural body posture of the "modified" mouse may be caused by strings. Lifting the mouse slighly, reducing fatigue due to its own weight?
    One cannot be too skeptical these days -- bad quality vid. ... *hmmm*

  83. Summary comparisons lacking by sacrilicious · · Score: 1
    can run five to six kilometres at a speed of 20 meters per minute

    Ok, so they can run 3/4 mph for several hours. I find it annoying that the summary doesn't indicate in any regard how this compares to "normal" mice... for all I know normal mice are capable of running 80% of this speed for longer. Yes I could read the article and probably find out, but I just think there's some low-hanging fruit here in terms of enticement that the summary could and should be including.

    --
    - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
  84. apple? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does that mean that it will last longer one I got with my iMac?

  85. Re:@#%!@ Quicktime... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get real, the original poster was running a 7 year old unsupported operating system
    But didn't quicktime work with it at some point in the past? Is there some reason why users should be obligated to always buy a newer OS when they already have one working?

    (that initially wasn't even meant to run as a desktop system no less)
    Yeah, because we all know that windows NT workstation was never intended for desktop use, either, right?
  86. Yeah, but they don't have to outrun the cat... by denzacar · · Score: 1

    Just their "normal" cousins.

    For both food and shelter.

    Until they decided that its time to start teaming up and hunting cats...

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  87. You could say the same about pro athletes... by denzacar · · Score: 1

    Quick and strong ones run around after the ball and each other the whole day, while "normals" sit at home and watch them do it on the TV.
    Normals seem much smarter. Or at least more civilized.

    Until you see how much cheese and "privileges" those ball chasers get.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  88. How did they motivate the mice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does anyone know how they motivated the mice to keep running like this? The mice were trying their best to get on the treadmill again and again even after falling. Very impressive

  89. So Mighty Mouse is on the way... by jackpot777 · · Score: 1

    ...but is it a case of here I come to save the day?

    Stupid thing to note: this was the only Google hit for the words of the Mighty Mouse cartoon.

    You kids. You've spoiled the internets with your "can i has cheezburger" and your disco music stealing. Get off my lawn.

    --
    Shiny. Let's be bad guys...
  90. Chains... by denzacar · · Score: 1

    Cheap AND easy to get.

    Chain their legs together, or just chain them to the house.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  91. But do they run Linux? by PMBjornerud · · Score: 1

    First time a non-computer TFA answers a meme!

    Mighty mice does not run Linux. They run 20m/min treadmills.

    --
    I lost my sig.
  92. You're forgetting the side effects by Tarlus · · Score: 1

    Sure, we could have the positive effects of long life and faster running speed.

    But the genetic engineering could bring about side effects like... I don't know, dry mouth, headaches, constipation, and peeing a corrosive acid that could instantly dissolve steel.

    --
    /* No Comment */
  93. Prior art by heinzkunz · · Score: 1

    I think there is prior art: http://www.apple.com/mightymouse/ ;)

  94. you're a moron by circletimessquare · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    as if that has anything to do with this subject matter

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:you're a moron by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      Wow, switch to decaf. Perhaps some low-budget filipino beans. You could spam slashdot with a sig about them for years, with no plans of ever actually finishing them. That's a good idea.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
  95. 20 (meters per minute) = 0.745645431 mph by John+Sokol · · Score: 2, Informative

    20 (meters per minute) = 0.745645431 mph
      that doesn't seem very fast for a mouse. Maybe running for 6 hours is amazing though.

      Mice can run up to 4 Kilometers per hour this is around 2.48548477 mph
            See: http://jeb.biologists.org/cgi/content/figsonly/207/22/3839

        So they are running at around 30% of there maximum speed.

        To put that into some perspective humans walk at around 3mph. and sprint for short distances at 20 Mph.
        A 4 Minute mile is 15 Mph, this is considered very good for a runner.

        The Marathon world record time running a 42.195 kilometers distance is 2 hours 4 minutes and 26 seconds, set in the Berlin Marathon by Haile Gebrselassie of Ethiopia on September 30, 2007.
        This required an average speed of 13 Miles per hour for 2 hours. Just amazing really.

        For regular humans in a Marathon the average time is more like to 4 hours or around 6.5 Mph.
              http://www.marathonguide.com/features/Articles/2005RecapOverview.cfm

        So to compare this with mice a humans peak is 15Mph (4 minute Mile) so 30% of peak is is 4.5 Mph.

        This accomplishment for mice is roughly equal to humans running at 4.5 Mph for 6 hours. for 27 miles or 43.452 kilometers just over a marathon distance. 6 Hour times are well below average and would be the slow runners in a marathon.

        So the mice are running a slow Marathon! Well below a human average.

    --
    I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it. - Pablo Picasso
    1. Re:20 (meters per minute) = 0.745645431 mph by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "So the mice are running a slow Marathon! Well below a human average."

      Well I, for one welcome our human overlords

    2. Re:20 (meters per minute) = 0.745645431 mph by zaq1xsw2cde9 · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure that the Human Average is to NOT finish the marathon at all. Some animals are built for speed and others for endurance. Horses are much faster than humans, but for a race over distance for several days, a human can finish long before a horse. I don't know where mice fit into this equation, but I suspect that they must be built for speed instead of endurance, since the normal mouse lasted only for a fraction of the time.

    3. Re:20 (meters per minute) = 0.745645431 mph by John+Sokol · · Score: 1

      I would expect endurance speeds to be about the same % of the top run speed for most mammals.

      Average is really the average of people who decide to run in marathons.

      I would expect most people probably could with sufficient training.
      No one enters a marathon without training and finishes it.

      I would expect that these mice have already been training for some time also.
      possibly even are the "cream of the crop" out of the mice available.

      John

      --
      I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it. - Pablo Picasso
    4. Re:20 (meters per minute) = 0.745645431 mph by zaq1xsw2cde9 · · Score: 1
      I would expect endurance speeds to be about the same % of the top run speed for most mammals.

      Then your expectations would be wrong. Even among breeds or horses, there significant differences in top speed versus a speed that can be maintained.

      Average is really the average of people who decide to run in marathons.

      I'm sorry, I meant to put a smiley here to denote my joke.

      I would expect that these mice have already been training for some time also. possibly even are the "cream of the crop" out of the mice available

      I don't think this is a good assumption at all. It was not mentioned at all. From Occam's Razor, I would assume that they had a box of lab mice and they treated one and dropped it and a control mouse on the tread mill.

  96. Correction...or perhaps more accuratly: by geekoid · · Score: 1


    Genetic engineering on humans is going to happen, And it should. Get over it.

    I think that's better.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  97. So... by Kaenneth · · Score: 1

    Fast, angry mice that starve to death in a short time...
    Fast, angry zombies that starve to death in a short time...

  98. stronger in one thing - weaker in another by johnrpenner · · Score: 1


    stronger in one thing ussually means weaker in something else:

        If you see in one creature an exceptional trait
        In some way bestowed, then ask at once where it suffers
        Elsewhere some lack, and search with investigative spirit.
        At once you will find to each form the key,

        For never did beast, with all kinds of teeth his upper
        Jaw bone bedecking, bear horns on its forehead,
        And therefore a horned lion the eternal mother
        Could not possibly fashion though she apply her full strength;
        For she has not mass enough, rows of teeth
        To fully implant and antlers and horns to push forth.

        (Goethe, Metamorphosis of Animals)

  99. O-hay-ooo-art... by davidsyes · · Score: 1

    Etch-A-Wretch...

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  100. scroll wheel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pretty soon they'll have ones with scroll wheels and two buttons. Coated in silver. With lasers. And blackjack. And hookers. In fact forget the mouse.

  101. tee hee ;-) by circletimessquare · · Score: 0, Troll

    pfffffffft

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  102. That's better than a marathon pace for 3x as long! by Khopesh · · Score: 1

    Uh. 4-6 hours at 20 meters per minute... Let's show how absolutely ridiculously fast that is:

    20 meters/minute * 60 minutes/hour / 1609.344 meters/mile = 14.9129 mph

    The world record for a marathon (26.218757mi) is 2:06:20, set in Amsterdam in 2005, which is 26.218757 miles / 2.105556 hours = 12.45218 mph

    Since the mouse can keep that pace for 4-6 hours, it could run a marathon in 1:45:29.25 (26.218757/14.9129) and then keep going at the same pace for another few hours. That's really really fast.

    --
    Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
  103. Problem solved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    sounds like we have the solution to our energy crisis...

  104. I, For One... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...Welcome our new Mighty Mousy overlords.

  105. Meat-Heads by Smordnys+s'regrepsA · · Score: 0

    To be fair, they don't have the brain power required for that level of consent.

    --
    Just -1, Troll talking to another.
  106. First, a mighty mouse. Later... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  107. Obligatory Douglas Adams quote... by Zaphod-AVA · · Score: 1

    -------
    ''They've been experimenting on you I'm afraid.'', said Slartibartfast

    Arthur thought about this for a second, and then his face
    cleared.

    ''Ah no,'' he said, ''I see the source of the misunderstanding now.
    No, look you see, what happened was that we used to do
    experiments on them. They were often used in behavioral
    research, Pavlov and all that sort of stuff. So what happened was
    hat the mice would be set all sorts of tests, learning to ring
    bells, run around mazes and things so that the whole nature of
    the learning process could be examined. From our observations of
    their behavior we were able to learn all sorts of things about
    our own ...''

    Arthur's voice tailed off.
    -------

    We miss ya DNA.

  108. More like... by polansky · · Score: 1

    carboxykickassness.

  109. Obligatory,,,, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I for one welcome our new genetically modified super mouse overlords...

  110. Re:That's better than a marathon pace for 3x as lo by kayditty · · Score: 0

    You are way off, sir. I don't think there are 1609.344 meters in one mile. More like 6 BILLION!!!!!11

    (20m/60s * 3.2808ft/m) = 1.0936ft/s * (3600s/h) / (5280 ft/mile) = 0.745636 mph (or 0.745645431 miles per hour according to google's calculator; I used mIRC's $calc()).

    A bit slower than the Boston Marathon's cut-off time, I think.

  111. Out of their minds by Simonetta · · Score: 1

    Are these people out of their minds? Producing a super mouse?! As if regular mice aren't enough of a problem. So make a mouse that runs super fast and can't be caught by cats. And eats 2.6 times as much as normal mice that already munch through a significant percentage of harvested grain in India and other places. And reproduces long after normal mice have finished their reproductive cycles.

        INSANE!

        So what are these guys going to do or say if or when these super-mice escape into the wild and start causing serious ecological problems? "Ah jeez, we're sorry! we didn't think something like this could happen!"

        Ecologically responsible scientists DON'T create super-versions of problem animals in their labs and then act proud of it. What schmucks!

        So what's next from these bozos? Super rats? Super mosquitos? Super gophers? Super moles? Beavers that can run like tigers and can bite a child's leg off?

        Just because you CAN create a super version of a problem animal doesn't mean that you SHOULD do such a stupid thing. Don't these guys ever read sci-fi? Or do they believe that their doctorates make them incapable of doing stupid things?

    1. Re:Out of their minds by MLease · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of The Fittest , by J.T. McIntosh. One of the scientists isn't named Paget, by any chance...? :)

      -Mike

      --
      I'm sorry; I don't know what I was thinking!
  112. If it's anything like the Apple mighty mouse.. by Serhei · · Score: 1

    It will run around like crazy for two months and then its neck will suddenly snap, requiring a fiddly operation to get it running again.

  113. erm by Heppelld0 · · Score: 1

    erm... has anyone seen 28 days later?

  114. Next question... by rtadams · · Score: 1

    Will it Blend?

  115. New Energy Source! by bitRAKE · · Score: 1

    A big wheel at the city dump connected to a generator, and we're in business.

  116. some perspective by cinnamon+colbert · · Score: 1

    from the abstract ( http://www.jbc.org/cgi/content/abstract/282/45/32844 )
    On a mouse treadmill,
    PEPCK-Cmus mice ran up to 6 km at a speed of 20 m/min, whereas controls stopped at 0.2 km.
    6 Km vs 0.2 - thats a big difference !!
    PEPCK-Cmus mice had an enhanced exercise capacity, with a VO2max of 156 ± 8.0 ml/kg/min, a maximal respiratory exchange ratio of 0.91 ± 0.03, and blood lactate of 3.7 ± 1.0 mM after running for 32 min at a 25 grade
    control animals were 112 ± 21 ml/kg/min, 0.99 ± 0.08, and 8.1 ± 5.0 mM respectively.
    The PEPCK-Cmus mice ate 60% more than controls but had half the body weight and 10% the body fat as determined by magnetic resonance imaging.

  117. They won't? by NerveGas · · Score: 1

    "athletes won't be modifying their genes any time soon to get it, because it apparently makes the mice more aggressive."

    How is that different from Roid Rage, which hasn't stopped many athletes?

    --
    Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
  118. Just for fun... by racecarj · · Score: 1

    They should race these super mice against those genetically engineered fat mice they made a few years ago. We could be along a spread.

  119. Re:20 meters to minute? Awesome! by schnikies79 · · Score: 1

    Anyone who can't walk 3.5mi seriously needs to rethink their health.

    I'm a runner though so maybe I'm biased.

    --
    Gone!
  120. Augments by Tekoneiric · · Score: 1

    Kind of reminds me of the Augments from Star Trek. Combine that with the mutation that drops myostatin levels, increases muscle mass and also happens to decrease aggression. Hopefully, you'd have a super strong and fast creature/person with normal aggression.

    --
    *It's not what you can do for the Dark Side but what the Dark Side can do for you!*
  121. Re:20 meters to minute? Awesome! by TheLink · · Score: 1

    Health? This is Slashdot.

    They seriously need to rethink about which gene modifying substances they should be consuming.

    Anyway, there are already mice with super regeneration abilities. And also super strong ones.

    Wonder what the drawbacks would be if you add all the mods together - regen, strength, stamina, brains.

    If it's just needing a lot more food and a 10% shorter lifespan, then some people may be willing to pay the price.

    --
  122. Energy Solution by Flammon · · Score: 1

    Sounds like an environmentally friendly way to produce electricity. I wonder how many mice would be needed to power a house. Maybe mice are too small so how about creating super chickens and somehow get them to run on treadmills. The animal rights activists would be happy to see the chickens getting some exercise and I'm sure millions of super chickens could produce a some decent wattage. Could be good for the Chicken Run movie sales as well.

  123. the next step... take down LOLCATs by edittard · · Score: 1

    You're right. I've been a fool. We all have. By appearing cute and harmless, the killer kitties have lulled us into a false sense of security. Lucky we have guys like you who are smart enough to see through their cunning feline ways. God bless you, and mankind too!

    --
    At the bottom of the /. main page it says 'Yesterday's News'. Well they got that right.
  124. Science Fiction? by pentalive · · Score: 1

    If the scientists actually did this, why is the article adorned with Balok and not Einstein?

  125. When you hear the call... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here I come to save the day!

    Mighty Mouse will use his powers for good. Right?

  126. Shine on Case Western by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its about time Case gets some notoriety.

    Congrats on making slashdot,

    A Proud Case Alum.